If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What's you're point? It's understood by virtually every Biblical scholar that much of the O.T. existed in oral form only for a long time before it was written down. There's still plenty there to understand if you aren't simply interested in dismissing it. There's also plenty of evidence for the historicity or the texts that give the accounts of Christ and the first century Church.

Comparing the actions of suicidal lunatics either raised to or self-taught to hate to the actions of first century Christians who gave everything (when they had an easy choice not to do so) to proclaim love and Christ is ridiculous.

i've read this a few times, and i don't think it comes out of the wash stain free.

i also side on no. i think the story started off as a parable, possibly, became a "truth" - ie, the legend had grown to large to dispel it, and was codified. as a matter of fact, i never thought jesus was actually claiming he was going to rise again to walk the earth and show himself to the disciples, but that god would take care of his soul, etc, and if they lived by his teachings, they would similarly be taken care of. i think it was far more spiritual than a black and white equation. but what do i know more than anyone else? not much.

though i did meet a crazy stoner in switzerland once who claimed to have met jesus on a mountainside after $#@!ing an english girl. the real jesus. wounds and all. small tangent there.

What's you're point? It's understood by virtually every Biblical scholar that much of the O.T. existed in oral form only for a long whole before it was written down. There's still plenty there to understand if you aren't simply interested in dismissing it. There's also plenty of evidence for the historicity or the texts that give the accounts of Christ and the first century Church.

My point is 1000 years ago the masses believed the story of Jonah as fact it happened, now fast forward and its a "metaphor" WTF changed and whose to say that same change wont happen to the bible as a whole in 100 or 1000 years

Im not denying that there was guy who lived in the ME 2000 or so years ago named Jesus and had followers and all that, what I do question is if he is the "son of god", was resurrected and just about every other far fetched story that is in the bible

Religion was created to help us cope with the fact that we will all die.

It's actually more complex than that. People use religion to justify all sorts of things: terrorism, sexism, discrimination, oppression, etc. A wife somewhere is probably being stoned to death now because their religion said women aren't equal to men.

I wasn't comparing them to christians. It was an example of people sacrifcing their lives for what they believe. The act does not make what they belive any more believable.

It does when their actions say something of who they are. ...you've stumbled upon one of my favorite and most meaningful analogies. Based upon Christ Himself and the lives of the Christians in the N.T., should you dismiss them outright? Or are they trustworthy? (EDIT: no part of Jewish culture allowed for toking out, etc.)

C. S. Lewis had a fictional character, Lucy, that made my point here. Upon being questioned as to the veracity of her claims as to the existence of Narnia, her claims were compared to those of her brother, Edmund, who denied what she said was true. Despite how incredulous others were at Lucy's claims of a fairy tale world, eventually an uncle inquired as to why they shouldn't believe Lucy's statements at face value if she had never lied to them before.

Christ is either Lord, liar, or lunatic. There are no other options, but your decision on which of the three He is must be based upon WHO He was, and not simply your idea of what you think He is or what others have wrongly done in His name.

I can guarantee you I'm not seemingly intelligent. ...nor do I joke about police officers being shot in the line of duty.

Is it your opinion that the cop's death was part of God's plan? If it's part of God's mysterious plan for the universe, why can't we all just sit back and enjoy it? Maybe God wanted to free the wife and kids from their $#@! father. He works in mysterious ways you know.

Is it your opinion that the cop's death was part of God's plan? If it's part of God's mysterious plan for the universe, why can't we all just sit back and enjoy it? Maybe God wanted to free the wife and kids from their $#@! father. He works in mysterious ways you know.

Bernard

It's my opinion that I'm not going to engage you on any of these topics based upon your other very ridiculous and intractable viewpoints now out there for anyone to see (based upon the thread I referenced). It seems pointless. Sorry.

My point is 1000 years ago the masses believed the story of Jonah as fact it happened, now fast forward and its a "metaphor" WTF changed and whose to say that same change wont happen to the bible as a whole in 100 or 1000 years

Im not denying that there was guy who lived in the ME 2000 or so years ago named Jesus and had followers and all that, what I do question is if he is the "son of god", was resurrected and just about every other far fetched story that is in the bible

Well, if there's no resurrection then everything I believe is a joke. There's no point without that.

You're definitely entitled to make you're own decision. I have. I'm not trying to be trite or cliche here, but if it's true, it is the most important event in history. A man who claimed to be the Son of God, died and rose again. For all of us. Or it might just be a story.

Well, sometimes it's obvious. Christ's parables, for example, are pretty obvious. The creation mythology at the beginning is, almost undeniably, poetic/figurative, meaning to show the creation of order from chaos. It doesn't take a modern man to know that the creation of language is a condition precedent to the ability to communicate a creation story. Genesis doesn't speak of the creation of language. Therefore, it only makes sense that the rest of the creation story in Genesis is not to be taken literally, as it leaves far too many obvious gaps that the writers', in the context of their own lives, would've known to exist.

You apply the same literary analysis you'd apply to any written document.

That mantra isn't nearly as tired as the one where man tries to deny God exists at all which, IIRC, is your viewpoint. That's been going on since the beginning of time. This is just nouveau atheism.

But what breaks down your cute picture is when Daniel 9 predicts that 483 years from the decree that Jerusalem is to be rebuilt (~450 BC) the Messiah was to be cutoff (i.e. killed). Daniel 9 is a key prophecy and much has been written over what it claims. Needless to say if a text can reach out over 400+ years to predict the future then there's nothing circular about it.

My point is 1000 years ago the masses believed the story of Jonah as fact it happened, now fast forward and its a "metaphor" WTF changed and whose to say that same change wont happen to the bible as a whole in 100 or 1000 years

Im not denying that there was guy who lived in the ME 2000 or so years ago named Jesus and had followers and all that, what I do question is if he is the "son of god", was resurrected and just about every other far fetched story that is in the bible

Some did,some didn't.No different than today.

Originally Posted by Rocko20

It's actually more complex than that. People use religion to justify all sorts of things: terrorism, sexism, discrimination, oppression, etc. A wife somewhere is probably being stoned to death now because their religion said women aren't equal to men.

You're right,it is complex because the same can be said about politics.

Um no, I don't believe it at all. I've always wondered, out of all the people in the world and the different time periods of history, what was so special about those people at that time? Why did god decide to send his son at that time to that region?

I have nothing much to add other than that I do believe that there is a God, higher power, ultimate reality, or something bigger than myself. I am mortal. Something else is eternal. Some people just call it the universe. But even that doesn't answer the question. Science basically says that everything dies. What then?

Here are more of my problems with my family and church/religion, whatever ...

My brother believes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old because the Bible tells him so (although the Bible doesn't actually say that). All I can say is ... Really? You can't possibly believe that. Of course, he graduated from Texas Tech so maybe I should excuse him.

My mother believes that Adam and Eve didn't have belly buttons because they were "created" not "born." My mother said, "What do you think God did? Stick His finger in their belly like the Pillsbury dough boy and say -- poof, you're done, now you have a belly button." That is ridiculous. I love my Mom but ...

Most of my family believes that Adam was created as about a 10 year old because he had to be old enough to manage the animals that roamed the Earth. They say he couldn't have been a newborn or a baby because he wouldn't be able to take care of himself.

My ex-wife also believes that God created man out of clay, mud, dirt, whatever. She basically believes God made man out of playdough.

This is nonsense. But, I suppose it doesn't matter that they believe in fantastic fairy tales. I still love them and will be there for them as they will always be there for me. It's just curious.

Also, in this post I'm not talking about sin, redemption, separation from God or ultimate truth, etc. I'll talk about that another time.

I do. To hear what happened to the apostles after the resurrection affirms my belief.
Those guys were tortured and murdered, but as Forty mentioned early on in the thread, it wasn't until after Jesus ascended that they were believers. Before that they had all gone back to their normal lives.
Christ appeared to hundreds of believers and non-believers before he ascended.

Other key facts:
* The Roman soldiers posted at his tomb would have been killed if they had let anyone in the tomb. It was their job to keep people out and if they failed they would have resulted in death. Thes guys had no reason to lie or protect a man they didn't believe in. Four soldiers watched in three hour shifts.
* The weight of cloth and sacriment put on him would have suffocated him even if he wasn't already dead from the cruxifiction. It is hundreds of pounds.
* The cloth had collapsed where it was wrapped. It wasn't unwound or cut open.
* The tomb was sealed with a rock that weighed an estimated 1-2 tons and had to be moved with levers.
* Blood and water came from his side when he was pierced. That means the heart and lung sacs were punctured. No coming back from that.

Everyone is free to believe what they want and I don't condemn others' for their beliefs. It is all about your own personal choise. For me, it is simple and beautiful.

Not sure why so many are posting that this thread is "regarded". I haven't seen any insults or pettiness. So far there's been an OP question, some yes's and no's, and a little discussion. If you don't like the topic just pick another. I promise its a worthwhile skill on the Shag.

You sort of understand. But there is no sense in posting anything unless people will talk about it.

well here's what i say on every one of these threads. i am a christian and i believe in god. you have absolutely no idea what happens when you die and neither do i. we can debate it all day long but until you die you will never really know so feel free to do whatever you'd like.

and sorry that your family and ex-wife have distorted views of religion/god/christianity. not all christians are like that. just another way for you to point out how much of a condescending prick you are. at least your ex-wife delivers pineapple pizza to your house on random occassions.

"Ishtar", which is pronounced "Easter" was a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of their gods that they called "Tammuz", who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god.

"Ishtar", which is pronounced "Easter" was a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of their gods that they called "Tammuz", who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god.

No, I don't but that doesn't keep me from thinking Christ was a righteous dude. When he rode into Jerusalem on the donkey, he knew full well what it meant and what it would mean. That took stones if you think he was just a man.

"Ishtar", which is pronounced "Easter" was a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of their gods that they called "Tammuz", who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god.

Happy (belated) Birthday Tammuz.

I dont go for plagiarism so obviously my answer is no.

The resurrection of Tammuz bears very little resemblance to the resurrection of Jesus outside of both using the term 'resurrection' and none of the existing Sumeriantexts refer to Tammuz as being the 'only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god.' And Ishtar isn't a pronunciation of "Easter", it was name another deity he was considered the consort of.

Its amazing the lengths people will go to make up stuff to discredit Christian beliefs.